...By bringing them up the fact that the treatment of women in Islamic countries is oftentimes compared to the prohibition on female ordination by the RCC, and how I think that such a comparison is absurd...

Yes. YOU bought up the comparasin. I never did. YOU are the one who bought it into the conversation.

I stated the reason directly above those other points; therefore, I have no diea why you’re saying that I’ve not addressed the question. Directly above those points, I said that it teaches us that the physical is irreverent since it teaches that the person who stands as in place of Christ, reenacting the Eucharist, is only important on a spiritual level since that’s all that’s important to God. It’s also not a little misandrous since it always devolves into a discussion about how Christ isn’t a man anymore. That he’s just “spiritual” now. “The physical creation isn’t important” isn’t what Christ taught when He was resurrected and took his body with Him; ergo, it's inimical to God's revelation.

Of course, I disagree that it’s irrelevant because the Church presumably says she’s informed by Christ and those who argue for the inclusion are effectively saying that they are speaking on Christ’s behalf. If they are, then why is Christ moving them to speak things wholly hostile to what He’s taught for two millennia?

So, are you saying that Christ specifically taught that women cannot be priests, only men can?

"The Church teaches it. Christ is the Head of the Church; therefore, Christ teaches it."

Your "conclusion" doesn't follow from your premises, it's essentially a restatement of the premise. And it isn't likely that a Christian you might want to convince would accept "the Church teaches it" as being a "true" premise. (Not "all" of the church teaches it).

The "argument" isn't likely to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with both your premises and your "conclusion".

YOU bought up the comparasin. I never did. YOU are the one who bought it into the conversation.

I got that part. I brought up how some idiots compare the prohibition on women's ordination to Talibanesque government and by doing that, according to you, I'm advocating Talibanesque government.

Cannibalism

I just mentioned cannibalism. What does that mean by mentioning it?

Apparently irony is lost on you.

The point is, since you bought it into the debate and not I, then, even though you bought it in and then protested against it (classic straw man btw) then perhaps you secretly fear or aknowledge that in fact there is predujice against women in the christian church.

"The Church teaches it. Christ is the Head of the Church; therefore, Christ teaches it."

Your "conclusion" doesn't follow from your premises, it's essentially a restatement of the premise. And it isn't likely that a Christian you might want to convince would accept "the Church teaches it" as being a "true" premise. (Not "all" of the church teaches it).

The "argument" isn't likely to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with both your premises and your "conclusion".

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would accept being head of an evil institution like the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you know the history of the chuch both religious and secular e.g. wouls Jesus align himself with the First Estate during the French Revolution.